Baker
I second anons here, >>4335834, >>4335858
NOT NOTABLE:
>>4335428, >>4335600 Was POTUS posting crumbs yesterday on /qr/? (Call to dig)
Re: >>4335892
Would prefer old news only be included with an explanation of how connects to current stuff
Disagree. Notables should never be about spit-balling. That's what posting in-bread is for.
You're right here, for sure:
>We have been told repeatedly to THINK for ourselves and that disinformation is necessary.
But disagree that anon below is correct
>I think you are correct, sadly, anon.
>We failed to drive! We failed to ask Q for sauce, we failed to think for our selves,
It was a logistics/hardware stress test, not a metaphoric one:
Although Q team does give us intellectual/discernment tests. Asking Q for sauce (passive receivers) is not the same thing as thinking for ourselves (active go-get'ers). But we should ask each other for sauce, and more important, we should learn to better delay making conclusions when the data is still inconclusive. The urge to have known quantities is strong in humans, it means we can let our guard down, stop working. Which is why it's a temptation that often lures us from the truth – more data/work is required to reach that comfy state of knowing. When Q isn't giving us crumbs, we should be actively digging deeper on all the old ones (you have more than you know) not continuing to look for proof Q loves us in Easter Egg winks. When we do speculate here, we need to keep it grounded in known facts, related to key players in the game. Not sensational mysteries like JFK Jr., Antarctica, Aliens, etc.